Beerope

Would it be a good idea to do this? Weight saved on rear brake cable and calipers. How often do you guys use your rear brakes?

jimc101

No, bad idea

Bah Humbug

Take off the chain for even more weight savings. Then you can get rid of the chainrings and cassette as well.

DrIsotope

Tires and tubes add a tremendous amount of rotating mass.

69chevy

Is saving less than half a pound worth losing the ability to stop quickly?

ThermionicScott 

It's an idiotic idea.

RPK79

Take them both off and just jam your foot between the frame and tire to stop.

bikemig 

You should post this on the single speed forum . . . .

79pmooney

If this is a road bike and you are going to keep the hoods for climbing, the weight saved (4' of cable, 2' of housing, a caliper and a bolt isn't very much. And with a front brake only on a freewheeled bicycle, you have no redundancy at all should anything fail on that front brake.

I gather you do not race. The word from those with long experience when I did was that you rode to minimize crashes because crashes caused major disruptions in training and therefore race results (and even whole seasons). I urge you to weigh that vs the ~300 grams you are thinking of removing.

Ben

CliffordK

If a person is riding a fixie... no coasting. Or, for that mater a coaster brake, then one can argue that a rear calliper brake is not needed, and the legs can provide enough braking force. However, I'd still argue that off the track, a front brake is a good idea.

For a road bike, I'd just go with two brakes. What if one fails? I've completed a long ride knowing that one brake was close to the failure point. Fixed it when I got home.

I tend to drag the rear brake to modulate the speed on hills and corners as necessary.

For maximal braking, you may get most of the force transferred to the front, but even a little extra from the rear may help.

KD5NRH

Did you get the bike for going or for stopping? Take them both off and ride like you mean it.

Drew Eckhardt 

No.

Speed gains from weight are proportional to the total change.

As a 135 pound rider on a 15 pound bike, dropping 200 grams of rear brake + cable would only yield a 200/68000 = 0.3% speedup on the steepest climbs which is 10.5 seconds for each hour.

That only matters when you're racing in the mountains and otherwise competitive.

On a group ride you're likely to be too far ahead or behind for it to matter. On my last group ride in decent shape at 135-137 pounds I waited 12 minutes for the stragglers after a pleasant half hour tempo climb. With all my middle age spread I'd have taken 14 minutes more, and at my biggest with the fitness accompanying that I'd have been 21 minutes behind.

On flat ground the difference wouldn't be measurable.

Lots where there is or could be crap on the road. While loosing front wheel traction can cause a crash, in back you're unlikely to do more than flat spot a tire if you're really ham-fisted.

Lots descending where my hands would otherwise get tired.

fietsbob

At great expense, there are some Rim brakes made of Really Light materials.

RJM

Silly idea. The question I have is why you aren't using your rear brake?

RPK79

You should also remove the seat and seat post to cut weight.

f4rrest

There's probably a few extra bolts you can remove too. For example, who needs 4 bolts to hold the handlebars on... why not just 2?

79pmooney

Another thought - major descents. (I'm betting our OP doesn't do this anyway, but I'll toss it out there.) With only one brake, that rim is going to get very hot if you have to do speed control. Two allows you to alternate between the two and keep your rims substantially cooler. (Blowing out a front tire on a 45+ mph descent isn't my idea of a good day.)

Ben

ThermionicScott 

I pick my battles around there. In full disclosure, my FG doesn't have a rear brake, but I still have two independent systems for slowing/stopping the bike.

BillyD

Well it's pretty unanimous, OP, it's a bad idea.

Of course soon somebody is going to come along and say "It depends". There's always at least one in the crowd.

Beerope

Thanks for all the replies! Good day mates! Seems like i should indeed, leave them on.

79pmooney

I just remembered - I blew a front tire descending Mt. Washington a few years back. That rear brake came in handy. (And yeah, I didn't take my own advice of alternating the brakes though dropping tire pressure at the top would have been even smarter.)

Ben

Beerope

I just happened to toy with the idea of no rear brakes, no front deraileur and no left shifter. Just a 50t with 11-32 casette. Seems like it wasnt a good idea?

79pmooney

Thanks Beerope. It's cool to hear some good come out of this forum and it actually heard. You just made my day! Enjoy yours.

Ben

79pmooney

People are now going with single front chainrings, no front derailleur and wide range cassettes. The trendy term is "1 x". You may want to keep the front derailleur as a chainkeeper or invest in a non-ramped chainring to avoid the chain coming off in front. (If you use the FD, just tighten the limit screws until the cage almost touches in the extreme gears in back. Note that the chain will straighten under load, so when you pedal, the cage has to be further off than what works on the stand. It could happen that the best setting to avoid throwing the chain means some rub in the extreme gears.)

Front derailleurs don't weigh very much. Keeping just it doesn't add a lot.

Ben

joejack951

With a more-than-adequate front brake (like a front disc), the rear brake becomes solely backup, at least for me. With caliper brakes, I do use a little rear so that I'm not squeezing so hard on just one lever.